Slashdot Mirror

Lots of businesses oppose labour unions. And for good reason. It's no wonder all the American auto plants are shutting down, when you have to pay people $25 an hour for untrained labour, meanwhile, all the cars coming out of Japan can do it so much cheaper.

You are dead wrong. The U.S. has one of the lowest levels of unionization among industrialized countries. Union density was 12.4% in 2003, roughly 2/3 of Japan's (19.7%) and 1/2 of Canada (28.4%) or the E.U. (26.3%). Statistics used are from the U.S. Department of Labor.

Actually, the difference in wage averages between H1-B and normal workers is very small and can normally be attributed to the fact that H1-Bs are normally not needed for more experienced employees (since they eventually get a greencard).

All the data on H1-Bs and average wages is public.
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/download.aspx
http://www.bls.gov/OES/

Hey, what's the average wage of an H1-B programmer in San Jose, CA?

http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx? code=15-1021&area=41940&year=8&source=1

What did you say the average wage of a computer programmer in the US is?

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes151021.htm

So, the average computer programmer in the US would have to be level 1 by a large margin for the H1-B worker to be making less on average.

Actually, the difference in wage averages between H1-B and normal workers is very small and can normally be attributed to the fact that H1-Bs are normally not needed for more experienced employees (since they eventually get a greencard).

All the data on H1-Bs and average wages is public.
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/download.aspx
http://www.bls.gov/OES/

Hey, what's the average wage of an H1-B programmer in San Jose, CA?

http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx? code=15-1021&area=41940&year=8&source=1

What did you say the average wage of a computer programmer in the US is?

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes151021.htm

So, the average computer programmer in the US would have to be level 1 by a large margin for the H1-B worker to be making less on average.

The median income for an American household was $45,000 in 2004. The median salary for a software engineer was between $75,000 and $80,000 in 2004. Computer Software Engineers

So they have already decided to allow a 15-year grace period and no interest. Given the time-value of money, I'm guessing that even as-is, IBM has de facto given them the computers at below cost. They've no doubt lost money on the deal, and have been extremely generous already.

But the wiki article you link to says:

"Used generally to describe a series of economic events from the 2nd half of the 15th century to the first half of the 17th, the price revolution refers most specifically to the high rate of inflation that characterized the period across Western Europe, with prices on average rising perhaps sixfold over 150 years.

As early as the 16th century, it was thought that this high inflation was caused by the large influx of gold and silver from the New World, especially the silver of Peru which began to be mined in large quantities from 1545. According to this theory, there was simply too much money for the amount of available goods.

In reality, the start of the rise in prices predated the large-scale influx of bullion from across the Atlantic..."

and goes on to list other factors. I also not sure if the 6x increase in price over 150 years is such a bad thing, consider this inflation calculator:
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

tells me $100 in 1917 is $1,614.73 dollars today.

I'm just not sure that printing up money is the best solution either. My family (in Germany) lived through a total devaluation of money in the 1920's (where it came to a point that a wheelbarrow full got you a loaf of bread) and again after the war but before the 1948 introduction of the Bundes Mark. Hard times. I don't know if the American part of my family had to live through such a thing, as the worst inflation I heard of on that side was during the Carter administration, despite the depression in the 20's/30's.

We don't have enough jobs for everyone as it is.

According to the Department of Labor, the current unemployment rate is 4.5%. In the last 59 years, the average has been 5.6%. Of those 59 years, it was less than 4.5% 13 times and greater 44 times, with a maximum of 9.7% just after Carter left office and a general downward trend since then.

We have all the jobs we need. Any more and you can expect inflation to start kicking in pretty seriously.

We don't have enough jobs for everyone as it is.

According to the Department of Labor, the current unemployment rate is 4.5%. In the last 59 years, the average has been 5.6%. Of those 59 years, it was less than 4.5% 13 times and greater 44 times, with a maximum of 9.7% just after Carter left office and a general downward trend since then.

We have all the jobs we need. Any more and you can expect inflation to start kicking in pretty seriously.

Reading comments like this frustrates me. I attended a year of law school before realizing what apparently took you six years in getting a Ph.D. There actually *aren't* as many law jobs as you seem to think; consider this article from the Wall Street Journal. From the article:

The legal profession is really two professions: the elite lawyers and everyone else. Most of the former start out at big law firms. Many of the latter never find gainful legal employment. Instead, they work at jobs that might be characterized as "quasi-legal": paralegals, clerks, administrators, doing work for which they probably never needed a J.D.

Although hard data about the nature of these jobs are difficult to come by (and rely on self-reporting, which is inherently unreliable), the mean salary for graduates of top 10 law schools is $135,000 while it is $60,000 for "tier three" schools. It's certainly possible that tier-three graduates tend to gravitate toward lower-paying public-interest and government jobs, but this lower salary may also reflect the nonlegal nature of many of these jobs and the fact that these graduates are settling for anything that will pay the bills.

Consider also this article from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It says: "Competition for job openings should be keen because of the large number of students graduating from law school each year."

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no shortage of lawyers; there is a shortage of brilliant lawyers. For that matter, there's a shortage of brilliance in just about every field conceivable. Do you really think it's easy to go into $100K of debt to go to three additional years of school with a rapacious, hard-working group just to graduate into a profession where 60+ hour weeks is the norm, not the anomaly? Too many of the recent law grads I know tell me they wish they'd done the same thing I do.

The real truth is that the brilliant people in any field -- law, science, math -- are the ones who love their job and hence it doesn't seem like work to them and hence they're willing to go mentally further than the drudges.

All you people who are grousing at the recommendations that people do what they love should keep this in mind when you're telling people to go to law school and the like.

To the OP: This isn't directed exclusively against you, although I think you'll benefit from realizing that you're experiencing a lot of the "grass is greener on the other side" effect. Were you quitting a job in the firm rat race, you might have the same opinion about law as you presently do about your Ph.D. But maybe not -- you could always go to law school; patent lawyers genuinely are in short supply, so you could always try that. Granted, being in school till you're 35 may not appeal, but I saw people doing it. This assumes you think you'll be passionate about the law, because if you aren't, the same burnout factors affecting you today will affect you tomorrow.

Unionized workers are only 12% of the American workforce. In fact, most of them are government. For the private sector, it's 7.4%.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

here are a couple more sources: BLS.gov

And an article interpreting that government report: article
"Look at the jobs we are creating. Yes construction (higher paying jobs) rebounded but much of the real growth is in leisure and hospitality, which are very low paying jobs."

Some of the numbers here don't jive with the Occupational Employment Statistics from the Bureau of Labor Stats and given the choice, I trust them more than an industry group interested in making its industry look good.

The article claims the average is $75,500; however, if you look up at Occupation: Computer Programmers (SOC code 151021) in the BLS, the average and median salary is $63,420 and average is $67,400. $10k / year on average is a substantial difference. If you want to broaden "hi-tech" degrees to the broader field of: Occupation: Computer and Mathematical Occupations (SOC code 150000) the mean/median appear similarly 10k / year lower than the article.

The Job outlook description for Computer programmers says to expect slower than average growth. Maybe things are looking up for Web2.0 but its not definite, and definitely not the trend across programming jobs, just one type.

To further muddy the waters: some multi-national companies don't technically outsource, they just have their internal employees in other countries do work for them. I used to work in upstate NY running programs on a mainframe in the UK until my job got "moved" to a team located in Bangalore. Since the mainframe was in the UK, what did it matter who ran the programs? The Bangalor employees made roughly 1/20th of what I made, and I came straight from college and made WAY less than the averages quoted above.

Lastly, the claim that companies hire for anything other than a skill set is a complete lie. If this is the case, then why are there job descriptions? Every job has a specific function requiring a specific skill. Once that skill is no longer needed then you are laid off. You will notice the phrase "ROI hiring" at the end of the article. If i'm a veteran employee and I make $80,000/year, at what point does it become cheaper to lay me off (provide a few months severance) and replace me with someone straight from college making $20,000-$30,000? How about with someone in another country who has similar qualification and because of the exchange rate, they cost $2,000-5,000 / year. Remember, ROI, If I get 10 projects done with a veteran @ 80,000/ year I have a lower ROI than 10 employees each doing 1 project @ $5,000 / year. Factor in that the veteran employee needs to be trained and the 10 rookies don't and you're compounding the difference in ROI.

Long story short, you're not safe from outsourcing, no one will train/retrain you so keep up with the industry and never stop learning! Challenge yourself and learn new languages and skills. There will be more tech jobs; but don't expect a second coming of the 2000 tech boom.

Some of the numbers here don't jive with the Occupational Employment Statistics from the Bureau of Labor Stats and given the choice, I trust them more than an industry group interested in making its industry look good.

The article claims the average is $75,500; however, if you look up at Occupation: Computer Programmers (SOC code 151021) in the BLS, the average and median salary is $63,420 and average is $67,400. $10k / year on average is a substantial difference. If you want to broaden "hi-tech" degrees to the broader field of: Occupation: Computer and Mathematical Occupations (SOC code 150000) the mean/median appear similarly 10k / year lower than the article.

The Job outlook description for Computer programmers says to expect slower than average growth. Maybe things are looking up for Web2.0 but its not definite, and definitely not the trend across programming jobs, just one type.

To further muddy the waters: some multi-national companies don't technically outsource, they just have their internal employees in other countries do work for them. I used to work in upstate NY running programs on a mainframe in the UK until my job got "moved" to a team located in Bangalore. Since the mainframe was in the UK, what did it matter who ran the programs? The Bangalor employees made roughly 1/20th of what I made, and I came straight from college and made WAY less than the averages quoted above.

Lastly, the claim that companies hire for anything other than a skill set is a complete lie. If this is the case, then why are there job descriptions? Every job has a specific function requiring a specific skill. Once that skill is no longer needed then you are laid off. You will notice the phrase "ROI hiring" at the end of the article. If i'm a veteran employee and I make $80,000/year, at what point does it become cheaper to lay me off (provide a few months severance) and replace me with someone straight from college making $20,000-$30,000? How about with someone in another country who has similar qualification and because of the exchange rate, they cost $2,000-5,000 / year. Remember, ROI, If I get 10 projects done with a veteran @ 80,000/ year I have a lower ROI than 10 employees each doing 1 project @ $5,000 / year. Factor in that the veteran employee needs to be trained and the 10 rookies don't and you're compounding the difference in ROI.

Long story short, you're not safe from outsourcing, no one will train/retrain you so keep up with the industry and never stop learning! Challenge yourself and learn new languages and skills. There will be more tech jobs; but don't expect a second coming of the 2000 tech boom.

How did this get modded insightful?

Employment still low? How is it then that the national unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in 5 years right now and getting close to being the lowest in well over 10 years. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServle t?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3

Stock still down? How do you equate stock down = the dow just hitting a new record today? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3683270/

Yes, gas is expensive but how is that and indicator of the economy? It's a negative influence on the economy, not the other way around. Appearantly in Soviet Russia Gas pays for you.

finally, how is the battle with terrorism an indicator of the economy? Right wrong or otherwise?

I'm not trying to support Bush, I will be as happy to see him go as most the rest of us. I'm just pointing out some serious flaws in the statement and logic here.

I believe that the unemployment numbers are related to the number of people collecting unemployment benefits.

It is the guys with the poorest social skills who are least likely to talk to adults and find out what the salary and working conditions are like in different occupations.

Quick! Everyone in a science department send a mass email to everyone you know telling them about this amazing old resource called the Occupational Outlook Handbook - where they can find out the differences of pay and working conditions not only in science - say biological scientists vs. chemists - but also how they match up to other lines of work such as floral design. And you don't even need to talk to anyone!

I guess my point here is that you don't necessarily need social skills to find out about alternatives. You also don't need social skills to be effective at life planning - which is a different skill set, one that women get socialized into early. You can even be a physician with poor social skills, just when you decide to try your budding life planning skills, pick the right sub-speciality like pathology.

It is the guys with the poorest social skills who are least likely to talk to adults and find out what the salary and working conditions are like in different occupations.

Quick! Everyone in a science department send a mass email to everyone you know telling them about this amazing old resource called the Occupational Outlook Handbook - where they can find out the differences of pay and working conditions not only in science - say biological scientists vs. chemists - but also how they match up to other lines of work such as floral design. And you don't even need to talk to anyone!

I guess my point here is that you don't necessarily need social skills to find out about alternatives. You also don't need social skills to be effective at life planning - which is a different skill set, one that women get socialized into early. You can even be a physician with poor social skills, just when you decide to try your budding life planning skills, pick the right sub-speciality like pathology.

It is the guys with the poorest social skills who are least likely to talk to adults and find out what the salary and working conditions are like in different occupations.

Quick! Everyone in a science department send a mass email to everyone you know telling them about this amazing old resource called the Occupational Outlook Handbook - where they can find out the differences of pay and working conditions not only in science - say biological scientists vs. chemists - but also how they match up to other lines of work such as floral design. And you don't even need to talk to anyone!

I guess my point here is that you don't necessarily need social skills to find out about alternatives. You also don't need social skills to be effective at life planning - which is a different skill set, one that women get socialized into early. You can even be a physician with poor social skills, just when you decide to try your budding life planning skills, pick the right sub-speciality like pathology.

It is the guys with the poorest social skills who are least likely to talk to adults and find out what the salary and working conditions are like in different occupations.

Quick! Everyone in a science department send a mass email to everyone you know telling them about this amazing old resource called the Occupational Outlook Handbook - where they can find out the differences of pay and working conditions not only in science - say biological scientists vs. chemists - but also how they match up to other lines of work such as floral design. And you don't even need to talk to anyone!

I guess my point here is that you don't necessarily need social skills to find out about alternatives. You also don't need social skills to be effective at life planning - which is a different skill set, one that women get socialized into early. You can even be a physician with poor social skills, just when you decide to try your budding life planning skills, pick the right sub-speciality like pathology.

It is the guys with the poorest social skills who are least likely to talk to adults and find out what the salary and working conditions are like in different occupations.

Quick! Everyone in a science department send a mass email to everyone you know telling them about this amazing old resource called the Occupational Outlook Handbook - where they can find out the differences of pay and working conditions not only in science - say biological scientists vs. chemists - but also how they match up to other lines of work such as floral design. And you don't even need to talk to anyone!

I guess my point here is that you don't necessarily need social skills to find out about alternatives. You also don't need social skills to be effective at life planning - which is a different skill set, one that women get socialized into early. You can even be a physician with poor social skills, just when you decide to try your budding life planning skills, pick the right sub-speciality like pathology.

Well, if you put the conspiracy theories aside for a moment, they stopped publishing it because

M3 does not appear to convey any additional information about economic activity that is not already embodied in M2 and has not played a role in the monetary policy process for many years.

Of course, that's what they WANT you to think!!

And no, I haven't noticed that the cost of most food items have gone up 25-50% in the past year. In fact, aside from things like Milk which fluctuate wildly, I think they've been pretty steady. Perhaps these price increases are specific to your location. Perhaps you just need to reconsider where you're shopping.

In fact, the Consumer Price Index for March 2007 (which, of course, includes groceries) was just published yesterday. It's presently at 205.352, up from 199.8 a year before- or, an increase of ~2.8%. This is practically a textbook example of a normal, low inflation rate. But don't let any facts rain on your parade.

Also, I do not understand about this hoopla about american jobs lost!! Where is the data to show that?

Just review the latest unemployment data at the DOL's Bureau of Labor Statistics at ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea30.txt . The unemployment rate for professionals is just 1.7% (!).

The unemployment rates for professionals when broken down by industry are equally dramatic:
Computer and math occupations - 2.0%
Architecture and engineering occupations - 1.7%

Just quoting at +2 so others can see some actual numbers instead of the rantings of Chicken Littles, who 100 years ago would be predicting imminent doom because farming jobs were disappearing.

Are you serious?
So, do you bar Nike from making their shoes overseas? Or are you okay if you have to pay 300$ for a Nike shoe made in USA?

Gone are the days of regulations. Such regulations work at China, not USA. That's the difference between Open and Closed Economy. Open economy kept the US ahead, even it costs a few jobs here. Look at the scenario when the manufacturing moved overseas. Same thing is happening, and you can do squat about it.

What you need to do is, learn new skills and keep ahead of the game. Learn things that people in outsourceable countries haven't developed expertise in.... yet!!

Also, I do not understand about this hoopla about american jobs lost!! Where is the data to show that?

Just review the latest unemployment data at the DOL's Bureau of Labor Statistics at ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea30.txt . The unemployment rate for professionals is just 1.7% (!).

The unemployment rates for professionals when broken down by industry are equally dramatic:
Computer and math occupations - 2.0%
Architecture and engineering occupations - 1.7%

Only that much?? That's probably just due to incompetence!!

The rise of feminism and the idea that you weren't a real woman unless you had a career, essentially doubled the size of the work force in a generation.

The Unemployment Rate is nearing the historical Lows set in Q4 2000 when the Tech Bubble Burst... where do you get a deteriorating job market from?

I could _never_ get insurance due to a pre-existing condition. The only way for me to get it is to work for someone else.

Insurance's purpose is to _spread the risk_. Once you get away from that, you may as well abolish insurance altogether.

No, I'm not being particularly religious, but you must be either 20 or younger, or you've never had a disease in your life. It must be so wonderful to not have a chronic disease.

If you're such a free-marketer, answer me this: How could I _ever_ become involved in starting my own business? I could _never_ get insurance due to a pre-existing condition.

Has the software development industry stabilized to an off-the-self commodity?

The US department of labour predicts the industry will "grow more slowly than average." That is hardly dead.

It is 2007 and we are still writing code using text editors, not giving verbal commands to sentient machines. Nothing to see here, move along.

I'm sorry, but the planet you're from, what is it called? The US labor unions have been almost eviscerated in the last 20 years this link your tax dollars paid for. Actually, it's more likely the janitor cleaning an office building is not unionized in the US. Dubai has no real unions. Most unions outside of Western Europe and the US are actually powerless. In many countries even things like health and safety regulations are a weakly enforced or even non-existant.

just because you throw one article at me, and it's from a .gov, doesn't completely disprove the entire discussion

That link of yours is trying to sell something. it's trying to sell the job of a teacher to people.

but your article doesn't say where it's getting those salary numbers. Is that public schools? Are they including private schools? higher learning institutions?

I just want more solid fact

a teacher's salary starts around 30 and doesn't really go much higher than that.

Fine. Here's one website they might not ignore so readily. If you're lost in the front page, this is a very good place to start.

If you have a job that spans a few different titles you should gather all of the related fields that apply and weigh them appropriately, such as: Computer Programmers + Computer Software engineers, applications + Electrical engineers + Electronics engineers + Computer software engineers + Network and computer systems administrators + etc.

However, ONLY use this type of data if you're currently within the bottom 25% and your employer thinks they're paying you close to (or more than) the average. Anybody using it to try to go from 45% to 49% will look like an ass, and rightfully so.

Fine. Here's one website they might not ignore so readily. If you're lost in the front page, this is a very good place to start.

If you have a job that spans a few different titles you should gather all of the related fields that apply and weigh them appropriately, such as: Computer Programmers + Computer Software engineers, applications + Electrical engineers + Electronics engineers + Computer software engineers + Network and computer systems administrators + etc.

However, ONLY use this type of data if you're currently within the bottom 25% and your employer thinks they're paying you close to (or more than) the average. Anybody using it to try to go from 45% to 49% will look like an ass, and rightfully so.

Or you could go to the http://www.bls.gov/bls/blswage.htm and check out their data which I'm sure is far more accurate than that given by the other sites.

... you have a very short memory. The original, 5 gigabyte iPod came out in 2001 with an introductory price of $399. That's $456.04 in 2007 dollars. The original iPod had miserable battery life, low storage, a B/W screen and it wasn't -in addition- a smart-phone with EDGE, WiFi, a 3.5-inch color screen and a friggin' camera!

Slashdot editors, here is a newsflash: "Industry analysts" are analysts because the are to frigging stupid to actually make it in the industry they are analyzing. Don't post crap like this.

How many amputees do you see in a normal month?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports 8,450 amputations in 2005, with 5,780 being fingertips and another 2,300 involving fingers. That leaves 370 other injuries. It reports 190 injuries for hands and feet, leaving 180 injuries that involve loss of limb. Link:

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/case/ostb1669.txt

I'm comfortable assuming people get hurt working a lot more often than playing, so there are something like 400 injuries a year that involve very high loss of functionality(I wouldn't even want to lose one finger, but a hand is a whole nother level). Soldiers are generally young and active, and they have excellent medical care, so I can see how several hundred amputees a year would contribute significantly to research.

until it is affordable by people who are living below the poverty line is a ridiculous one

buy an HDTV->Standard Def converter

Computer Programmer - Convert project specifications and statements of problems and procedures to detailed logical flow charts for coding into computer language. Develop and write computer programs to store, locate, and retrieve specific documents, data, and information. May program web sites.

Computer Systems Analyst - Analyze science, engineering, business, and all other data processing problems for application to electronic data processing systems. Analyze user requirements, procedures, and problems to automate or improve existing systems and review computer system capabilities, workflow, and scheduling limitations. May analyze or recommend commercially available software. Exclude persons working primarily as "Engineers" (17-2011 through 17-2199), "Mathematicians" (15-2021), or "Scientists" (19-1011 through 19-3099). May supervise computer programmers.

Note my italics. The first job is certainly one that is "easier" and the second one is "harder" --- certainly, the second person might make a bit more money or do higher-level thinking. It could be argued that the second job is "better" --- we want more people making sure widgets are built correctly rather than bolting in Section 7-G into hundreds of widgets a day.

Well, here's a table showing how those two jobs did. Make no mistake, we lost computer programmers. About 130,000 of them from 1999 to 2004. That's a lot of jobs. We're also spending less overall on these computer programmers: about $6 billion less.

But... what happened to the Systems Analyst, the one who "may" supervise the programmers? Well, we've added 70,000 of those jobs and since 1999 we're spending $7 billion more employing these guys. Overall, we're spending $1 billion more (inflation-adjusted) on Computer Programmers and Computer Systems Analysts, eventhough there's 60,000 less people being employed (out of a starting pool of almost a million people).

That, to me, looks like resources being shifted. It looks like there are more jobs supervising, and those jobs not only earn more, but their wages are steadily increasing. The old "lost" job is out of the door and on a desk in Romania or Bangalore. The new "replacement" job has arrived and it pays Americans more.

Overly simplified? Of course. There's any number of factors which can muddle up this data. But, this is hard data at least, and slightl

Computer Programmer - Convert project specifications and statements of problems and procedures to detailed logical flow charts for coding into computer language. Develop and write computer programs to store, locate, and retrieve specific documents, data, and information. May program web sites.

Computer Systems Analyst - Analyze science, engineering, business, and all other data processing problems for application to electronic data processing systems. Analyze user requirements, procedures, and problems to automate or improve existing systems and review computer system capabilities, workflow, and scheduling limitations. May analyze or recommend commercially available software. Exclude persons working primarily as "Engineers" (17-2011 through 17-2199), "Mathematicians" (15-2021), or "Scientists" (19-1011 through 19-3099). May supervise computer programmers.

Note my italics. The first job is certainly one that is "easier" and the second one is "harder" --- certainly, the second person might make a bit more money or do higher-level thinking. It could be argued that the second job is "better" --- we want more people making sure widgets are built correctly rather than bolting in Section 7-G into hundreds of widgets a day.

Well, here's a table showing how those two jobs did. Make no mistake, we lost computer programmers. About 130,000 of them from 1999 to 2004. That's a lot of jobs. We're also spending less overall on these computer programmers: about $6 billion less.

But... what happened to the Systems Analyst, the one who "may" supervise the programmers? Well, we've added 70,000 of those jobs and since 1999 we're spending $7 billion more employing these guys. Overall, we're spending $1 billion more (inflation-adjusted) on Computer Programmers and Computer Systems Analysts, eventhough there's 60,000 less people being employed (out of a starting pool of almost a million people).

That, to me, looks like resources being shifted. It looks like there are more jobs supervising, and those jobs not only earn more, but their wages are steadily increasing. The old "lost" job is out of the door and on a desk in Romania or Bangalore. The new "replacement" job has arrived and it pays Americans more.

Overly simplified? Of course. There's any number of factors which can muddle up this data. But, this is hard data at least, and slightl

Computer Programmer - Convert project specifications and statements of problems and procedures to detailed logical flow charts for coding into computer language. Develop and write computer programs to store, locate, and retrieve specific documents, data, and information. May program web sites.

Computer Systems Analyst - Analyze science, engineering, business, and all other data processing problems for application to electronic data processing systems. Analyze user requirements, procedures, and problems to automate or improve existing systems and review computer system capabilities, workflow, and scheduling limitations. May analyze or recommend commercially available software. Exclude persons working primarily as "Engineers" (17-2011 through 17-2199), "Mathematicians" (15-2021), or "Scientists" (19-1011 through 19-3099). May supervise computer programmers.

Note my italics. The first job is certainly one that is "easier" and the second one is "harder" --- certainly, the second person might make a bit more money or do higher-level thinking. It could be argued that the second job is "better" --- we want more people making sure widgets are built correctly rather than bolting in Section 7-G into hundreds of widgets a day.

Well, here's a table showing how those two jobs did. Make no mistake, we lost computer programmers. About 130,000 of them from 1999 to 2004. That's a lot of jobs. We're also spending less overall on these computer programmers: about $6 billion less.

But... what happened to the Systems Analyst, the one who "may" supervise the programmers? Well, we've added 70,000 of those jobs and since 1999 we're spending $7 billion more employing these guys. Overall, we're spending $1 billion more (inflation-adjusted) on Computer Programmers and Computer Systems Analysts, eventhough there's 60,000 less people being employed (out of a starting pool of almost a million people).

That, to me, looks like resources being shifted. It looks like there are more jobs supervising, and those jobs not only earn more, but their wages are steadily increasing. The old "lost" job is out of the door and on a desk in Romania or Bangalore. The new "replacement" job has arrived and it pays Americans more.

Overly simplified? Of course. There's any number of factors which can muddle up this data. But, this is hard data at least, and slightl

OK, I went to the DOL statistics website, and what I see doesn't back up this claim. Specifically, the labor force in 1999 is listed as 117.1 million, and the labor force in 2002 is listed as 122.5 million. (Note: these are the "not seasonally adjusted" figures.) For the same time frame, "not in labor force" went from 68.4 million to 72.7 million. "Not in Labor Force, Want a Job Now" went from 4.6 million to 4.7 million, "Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available" went from 1.2 million to 1.4 million, "Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking" went from 0.3 million to 0.4 million, and "Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Reasons Other Than Discouragement" went from 0.9 million to 1.1 million.

I can't find disabled or displaced figures.

In December 2005, about 6.5 million disabled workers received Social Security disability benefits. The U.S. labor force is about 150 million, so assuming all 6.5 million disabled workers would/could be part of the labor force, the rate of disabled workers is about 4%.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/di_asr/20 05/sect01.html#chart1

In 2006 Q4, the long-term (greater than 15 weeks) unemployment rate in the US is only 1.4%. 69% of unemployed Americans have been unemployed fewer than 15 weeks.

http://www.bls.gov/web/cpseed10.pdf

The best I could find is:

http://www.infouse.com/disabilitydata/disability/1 _1.php coupled with this explanation:

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2004/duboff0204.html
http://www.westgard.com/essay60.htm

The 20% number is the total number of workers with any kind of disability. That doesn't mean that 20% is unemployed, that they are listed with some kind of disability. This is NOT the number of people removed from the labor force for disability reasons. Those people must be 'detached from the labor force' in that they are not actively looking for work. A disabled person who is actively looking for work will be counted as unemployed. I can't find reliable figures for just how widespread that is.

Here is how the unemployment numbers are arrived at:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

So you'd rather pay 47,270 per year per cop for them to stand guard in public areas, than add around sixty really nice cameras, or a few hundred middlin cameras.

Sure we'd rather have real cops, but frankly, there is no possible way we'd ever be able to afford all the cops we'll ever need to make sure there is no crime, so why not make sure that people who do commit crimes don't get a chance to repeat.

Hey hey now. Making statements like this is what makes your point (and there is validity to be found in it) seem bigoted.

The act of assuming that women and minorities are somehow less than white males is the root of the problem. The fact that these groups have been discriminated against creates a need for balance.

FACT: More than 50% of the population of the US considers themselves "White". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census% 2C_2000
FACT: There are more males employed than females. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat8.txt
THEORY: The ratios will remain largely the same in the workforce.

The reason that an influx of women and minorities may seem to you to have reduced productivity? I believe the explanation lies in companies having "Affirmative Action" policies that make an attribute that has nothing to do with ability a determining factor in choosing who to hire.

"to give them motivation to combat unemployment."

do you even realize what the current unemployment rate is? it's considered full employment.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServle t

Erm, no, you are actually completely wrong:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/uiclaims.htm

Here are some direct links to back it up:

Chart 1-2. The unemployment rate is down from its most recent peak in June 2003 (PDF)

Chart 1-6. The percentage of the population that is employed has trended up since September 2003 (PDF)

Here are some direct links to back it up:

Chart 1-2. The unemployment rate is down from its most recent peak in June 2003 (PDF)

Chart 1-6. The percentage of the population that is employed has trended up since September 2003 (PDF)

Here are some direct links to back it up:

Chart 1-2. The unemployment rate is down from its most recent peak in June 2003 (PDF)

Chart 1-6. The percentage of the population that is employed has trended up since September 2003 (PDF)

Umm... Did you even read the site you linked to?

Umm, did you even read the article you're responding to? We're talking about 2005, not 2006, Kreskin.